TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Victims can appeal acquittal in Sessions Court or High Court under Section 372 CrPC. No conflict with Section 378(4).</h1> <h3>G. Basawaraj Versus The State of A.P. and Ors.</h3> The court held that appeals against acquittal can be filed by a victim either in the Sessions Court or the High Court, based on the trial court's order, ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain appeals against acquittal.2. Applicability of Section 378(4) and Proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).3. Interpretation of statutory provisions post-amendment.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain appeals against acquittal:The accused questioned the filing of Criminal Appeal Nos. 12 of 2009 and 13 of 2009 before the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. The complainant filed these appeals against the judgments of acquittal passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alampur. The accused contended that the appeals should have been filed in the High Court u/s 378(4) CrPC, not in the Sessions Court.2. Applicability of Section 378(4) and Proviso to Section 372 CrPC:The complainant argued that the recent amendment to Section 372 CrPC introduced a proviso allowing a victim to file an appeal to the Sessions Court against an acquittal recorded by the Magistrate. The court noted that prior to the 2009 amendment, the only remedy for a complainant was to file an appeal u/s 378(4) CrPC to the High Court. However, the amendment enlarged the field, allowing a victim to file an appeal to the Sessions Court or the High Court, depending on the trial court's order.3. Interpretation of statutory provisions post-amendment:The court emphasized the importance of plain and simple reading of statutory provisions. It found no conflict between Section 378(4) and the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court held that both provisions could operate simultaneously, allowing a victim who is also a complainant to choose between filing an appeal to the High Court u/s 378(4) CrPC or to the Sessions Court/High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court concluded that the appeals filed before the Sessions Court were maintainable.Conclusion:The court transferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 12 of 2009 and 13 of 2009 from the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District to the High Court. The Registry was directed to post the appeals for admission before the appropriate bench.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
